Tambunting v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a consignment and release of real estate mortgage case filed by respondents Francisco Parulan Sr., Felisa de la Cruz, and Francisco Parulan, Jr. against petitioners Jose P. Tambunting and Josefina Arnaiz. The trial court rendered an adverse judgment against the petitioners. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals from the adverse judgment. They filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for a 30-day extension to file their record on appeal. The record on appeal was filed within the extended period, though the orders granting the extensions were not yet received by petitioners at the time of filing. The trial court, in an order dated July 18, 1974, approved the record on appeal, expressly finding it was filed within the reglementary period and that there was no opposition. The Court of Appeals subsequently issued a notice for payment of docketing fees. Petitioners filed a motion to incorporate the orders granting extensions, which were then filled into the record on appeal. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the material data rule. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a resolution dated February 17, 1975, and denied reconsideration in a subsequent resolution. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed the present petition, which the Supreme Court treated as a special civil action, seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their appeal. They argue that the trial court's approval of the record on appeal, which included a finding that it was timely filed, should have been controlling. They rely on established jurisprudence, specifically Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals and Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals, which hold that the approval of a record on appeal by the trial court carries with it the approval of any motion for extension, even if not formally stated, and that the appellate court may rely on the trial court's finding of timeliness when such finding is not disputed. Petitioners contend they were unduly deprived of their right to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals for non-inclusion of the orders granting extensions of time to file the record on appeal is proper. Whether the approval of the record on appeal by the trial court, despite the absence of a formal order granting the extension, is sufficient to validate the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioners' appeal and remanded the case for prompt disposition on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal of the appeal: The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal by the respondent court was improper. Controlling jurisprudence dictates that the trial court's approval of the record on appeal carries with it the approval of the motion for extension, even if a formal order granting such extension is absent or not explicitly included in the record. This is particularly true when the appeal is filed within the requested extended period and the trial court's finding of timeliness is not disputed by the adverse party. The Court emphasized that a trial judge would not approve a record on appeal if it were not timely filed, thus implying approval of any necessary extensions. On the sufficiency of the trial court's approval: The Court reiterated the liberal position adopted in previous cases, such as Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals, that where the trial court expressly finds and declares in its order of approval that the record on appeal was filed "on time" or "within the reglementary period," and the correctness of this finding is not impugned by the adverse party, the non-inclusion of a motion and order for extension is not fatal to the appeal. The appellate court may properly rely on the trial court's determination of the appeal's timeliness. In this case, the trial court expressly found the record on appeal to have been filed within the reglementary period, and the respondents did not dispute the factual correctness of this finding.
Main Doctrine
The approval of a record on appeal by the trial court carries with it the approval of the motion for extension, even if no formal order granting the extension is included, provided the appeal was filed within the extended period and the trial court's approval is not disputed. The appellate court may rely on the trial court's finding of timeliness.